binutils 2.20 gone missing?

binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Sebastian Unger]

Hi There,

I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/. I can still find the file around the
internet, but I wanted to know why it was gone. Was it simply
accidentally deleted or is there a deeper reason?

Please copy me to my address, as I'm not subscribed to the list.

Cheers,
Seb

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Tristan Gingold]

On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Sebastian Unger wrote:

> Hi There,
> 
> I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
> binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/. I can still find the file around the
> internet, but I wanted to know why it was gone. Was it simply
> accidentally deleted or is there a deeper reason?

I cannot remember having removed binutils 2.20.

What is wrong with binutils 2.20.1 ?

Tristan.

> 
> Please copy me to my address, as I'm not subscribed to the list.
> 
> Cheers,
> Seb

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[nick clifton]

Hi Seb,

> I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
> binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/.

I can see a binutils-2.20.1.tar.bz2 file there.  Is that not what you want ?

Cheers
   Nick

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Sebastian Unger]

Hi Nick & Clifton,

I'm trying to reproduce a toolchain from source to the point of being
able to produce binary identical output from an tag of our sources.
The toolchain used to use 2.20, so that's what I was going for. I
wanted to know why 2.20 had been removed. I.e. was it an accident or
was there some serious flaw with it and it was recalled. In that
latter case I need to think about whether we really DO want to produce
binary identical output or rather get the benefit of not having the
flaw. (whatever that might be).

An alternative explanation could be that you guys never released a
2.20 in which case I have to start researching more where we got it
from.

Cheers,
Seb

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM, nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Seb,
>
>
>> I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
>> binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
>> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/.
>
>
> I can see a binutils-2.20.1.tar.bz2 file there.  Is that not what you want ?
>
> Cheers
>   Nick
>

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[nick clifton]

Hi Seb,

> I'm trying to reproduce a toolchain from source to the point of being
> able to produce binary identical output from an tag of our sources.
> The toolchain used to use 2.20, so that's what I was going for. I
> wanted to know why 2.20 had been removed. I.e. was it an accident or
> was there some serious flaw with it and it was recalled. In that
> latter case I need to think about whether we really DO want to produce
> binary identical output or rather get the benefit of not having the
> flaw. (whatever that might be).

To be honest with you, I do not know why it was pulled from the FSF's 
website.  Space considerations maybe ?  2.20,1 is a bug-fix-only 
improvement on the 2.20 sources, so if the FSF servers are running out 
of room, it would make sense to only include the latest version of each 
major release.

Since you are able to find the 2.20 release elsewhere I would suggest 
that you stick with that.  At least until you encounter problems which 
might be fixed by a later release.

Cheers
   Nick

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 01/17/2013 08:27 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2013 13:57:38 Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 1/17/2013 12:43 PM, Sebastian Unger wrote:

>>> that was 2.20.1a. The two are now identical in the archive, so 2.20.1a
>>> replaced 2.20.1 completely. But there's no trace of 2.20.
IIRC, the non-"*a" version were removed from ftp.gnu.org for legal 
reasons and replaced with sym-links to the "*a" versions. No idea, 
however, why 2.20 is missing.

>> $ md5sum binutils-2.20.tar.bz2
>> ee2d3e996e9a2d669808713360fa96f8  binutils-2.20.tar.bz2

AFAIS, this md5sum matches with the version on sourceware.org. So, I'd 
assume sourceware.org still carries the original versions.

Ralf

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Sebastian Unger]

Thanks guys.

I have that file, (we kept the source) and confirmed both MD5 and SHA1
match. I'd still recommend putting it back in the archive if there
wasn't a good reason to remove it in the first place so as to avoid
confusing others. If there was a good reason, then a README.2.20
explaining the same would be good.

Cheers,
Seb

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 17 January 2013 13:57:38 Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 1/17/2013 12:43 PM, Sebastian Unger wrote:
>> > Hi Joel,
>> >
>> > that was 2.20.1a. The two are now identical in the archive, so 2.20.1a
>> > replaced 2.20.1 completely. But there's no trace of 2.20.
>>
>> Ahh...
>>
>> I checked an RTEMS tools testing machine and I have the
>> binutils-2.20.tar.bz2 file on it.
>>
>> $ md5sum binutils-2.20.tar.bz2
>> ee2d3e996e9a2d669808713360fa96f8  binutils-2.20.tar.bz2
>
> FWIW, i have the same and here's some more signed hashes:
> http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-devel/binutils/Manifest?revision=1.594
> -mike

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 616 bytes --]

On Thursday 17 January 2013 13:57:38 Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 12:43 PM, Sebastian Unger wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> > 
> > that was 2.20.1a. The two are now identical in the archive, so 2.20.1a
> > replaced 2.20.1 completely. But there's no trace of 2.20.
> 
> Ahh...
> 
> I checked an RTEMS tools testing machine and I have the
> binutils-2.20.tar.bz2 file on it.
> 
> $ md5sum binutils-2.20.tar.bz2
> ee2d3e996e9a2d669808713360fa96f8  binutils-2.20.tar.bz2

FWIW, i have the same and here's some more signed hashes:
http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-devel/binutils/Manifest?revision=1.594
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Joel Sherrill]

On 1/17/2013 12:43 PM, Sebastian Unger wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> that was 2.20.1a. The two are now identical in the archive, so 2.20.1a
> replaced 2.20.1 completely. But there's no trace of 2.20.
Ahh...

I checked an RTEMS tools testing machine and I have the 
binutils-2.20.tar.bz2 file on it.

$ md5sum binutils-2.20.tar.bz2
ee2d3e996e9a2d669808713360fa96f8  binutils-2.20.tar.bz2

Do I need to arrange to get it to someone to get it back on the
GNU machine?
> Cheers,
> Seb
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Joel Sherrill
> <Joel.Sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> Wasn't 2.20.1 just to correct a packaging issue? Or am I remembering another .1?
>>
>> --joel
>>
>> Sebastian Unger <sebunger44@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Nick & Clifton,
>>
>> I'm trying to reproduce a toolchain from source to the point of being
>> able to produce binary identical output from an tag of our sources.
>> The toolchain used to use 2.20, so that's what I was going for. I
>> wanted to know why 2.20 had been removed. I.e. was it an accident or
>> was there some serious flaw with it and it was recalled. In that
>> latter case I need to think about whether we really DO want to produce
>> binary identical output or rather get the benefit of not having the
>> flaw. (whatever that might be).
>>
>> An alternative explanation could be that you guys never released a
>> 2.20 in which case I have to start researching more where we got it
>> from.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Seb
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM, nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Seb,
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
>>>> binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
>>>> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/.
>>>
>>> I can see a binutils-2.20.1.tar.bz2 file there.  Is that not what you want ?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>    Nick
>>>


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Sebastian Unger]

Hi Joel,

that was 2.20.1a. The two are now identical in the archive, so 2.20.1a
replaced 2.20.1 completely. But there's no trace of 2.20.

Cheers,
Seb

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Joel Sherrill
<Joel.Sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
> Wasn't 2.20.1 just to correct a packaging issue? Or am I remembering another .1?
>
> --joel
>
> Sebastian Unger <sebunger44@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Nick & Clifton,
>
> I'm trying to reproduce a toolchain from source to the point of being
> able to produce binary identical output from an tag of our sources.
> The toolchain used to use 2.20, so that's what I was going for. I
> wanted to know why 2.20 had been removed. I.e. was it an accident or
> was there some serious flaw with it and it was recalled. In that
> latter case I need to think about whether we really DO want to produce
> binary identical output or rather get the benefit of not having the
> flaw. (whatever that might be).
>
> An alternative explanation could be that you guys never released a
> 2.20 in which case I have to start researching more where we got it
> from.
>
> Cheers,
> Seb
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM, nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi Seb,
>>
>>
>>> I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
>>> binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
>>> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/.
>>
>>
>> I can see a binutils-2.20.1.tar.bz2 file there.  Is that not what you want ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>   Nick
>>

Re: binutils 2.20 gone missing?

[Joel Sherrill]

Wasn't 2.20.1 just to correct a packaging issue? Or am I remembering another .1?

--joel

Sebastian Unger <sebunger44@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi Nick & Clifton,

I'm trying to reproduce a toolchain from source to the point of being
able to produce binary identical output from an tag of our sources.
The toolchain used to use 2.20, so that's what I was going for. I
wanted to know why 2.20 had been removed. I.e. was it an accident or
was there some serious flaw with it and it was recalled. In that
latter case I need to think about whether we really DO want to produce
binary identical output or rather get the benefit of not having the
flaw. (whatever that might be).

An alternative explanation could be that you guys never released a
2.20 in which case I have to start researching more where we got it
from.

Cheers,
Seb

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:52 AM, nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Seb,
>
>
>> I'm trying to rebuild an older tool-chain of mine which was using
>> binutils 2.20. I was surprised that that source tarball is gone from
>> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/.
>
>
> I can see a binutils-2.20.1.tar.bz2 file there.  Is that not what you want ?
>
> Cheers
>   Nick
>